Liveaboards being evicted in UK

[dgadee]

Surely the canals were built for travel? Caravans 'moored' on the roads?

John G

Yes, they were. But this is the 21st century not the 18th.

Edit: The strict approach to eviction of the disabled from housing has been met on land in Malcolm v London Borough of Lewisham where the House of Lords allowed eviction. This approach was overturned in the Equality Act 2010. It seems to me - though of course everything here is second hand - that the CRT may not be acting lawfully.

 

[jerrytug]

I would have thought with a housing crisis and many miles of canals that encouraging broader usage would make economic sense. Seems an awful waste of resources to me to be flinging people onto local councils and other bodies.

Yes, and the CRT couldn't evict them all and Section 8 all the boats anyway. They only have a few little tugs nationwide, and the staff are reluctant to evict people from their homes, who wouldn't be? (apart from certain internet hard men who would evict families of "scum" etc).

And where would they put all the boats they seized, dig new marinas for impounded vessels? There are LOTS!

A fresh approach is needed.

 

[rotrax]

I would have thought with a housing crisis and many miles of canals that encouraging broader usage would make economic sense. Seems an awful waste of resources to me to be flinging people onto local councils and other bodies.

You are showing ignorance of what canals are about here.

By the time you take out the lock pounds-where mooring would be foolish due to the rise and fall in levels as the locks were operated-the head and tails of locks where the space is required for boats waiting to go up or down said locks, the areas miles and miles from civilisation where it is OK for a few days, usually untill you require water, shopping pump out etc., you are left with the desirable areas on the outskirts of towns and villages.

These areas are the ones often full of liveaboards cheating the system.

There's a hole in my bucket.......................................

 

[dgadee]

You are showing ignorance of what canals are about here.

By the time you take out the lock pounds-where mooring would be foolish due to the rise and fall in levels as the locks were operated-the head and tails of locks where the space is required for boats waiting to go up or down said locks, the areas miles and miles from civilisation where it is OK for a few days, usually untill you require water, shopping pump out etc., you are left with the desirable areas on the outskirts of towns and villages.

These areas are the ones often full of liveaboards cheating the system.

There's a hole in my bucket.......................................

'Cheating the system' to you just seems like trying to survive a housing crisis to me. I lived in London in the 1980s and accommodation was reasonable in cost. I see what my daughter and her friends are paying to rent now and I just wonder about the madness of it all. Doing an Amsterdam is fine by me - a few narrowboats pootling about the canal system is an asset wasted. Of course liveaboards want to live near towns. Why shouldn't they? The holiday makers can surely go elsewhere.

 

[Tranona]

'Cheating the system' to you just seems like trying to survive a housing crisis to me. I lived in London in the 1980s and accommodation was reasonable in cost. I see what my daughter and her friends are paying to rent now and I just wonder about the madness of it all. Doing an Amsterdam is fine by me - a few narrowboats pootling about the canal system is an asset wasted. Of course liveaboards want to live near towns. Why shouldn't they? The holiday makers can surely go elsewhere.

That is because you do not seem to understand that the canals are not in general intended for housing. There are residential moorings, but they are limited and tenants in those moorings have similar rights to land based tenants - but just like land based tenants they can also be evicted if they do not meet the terms of their tenancy.

However the people involved in these cases are not tenants and are breaking the terms of their licence, or in some cases do not have a licence at all.

There may be a case for turning the canals into waterborne housing estates but that would mean Parliament changing the law and there is no indication that this is likely to happen.

 

[dgadee]

That is because you do not seem to understand that the canals are not in general intended for housing. There are residential moorings, but they are limited and tenants in those moorings have similar rights to land based tenants - but just like land based tenants they can also be evicted if they do not meet the terms of their tenancy.

However the people involved in these cases are not tenants and are breaking the terms of their licence, or in some cases do not have a licence at all.

There may be a case for turning the canals into waterborne housing estates but that would mean Parliament changing the law and there is no indication that this is likely to happen.

'You do not seem to understand' appears to mean 'You are not willing to agree that I am right'. The latter is true.

There are residential moorings already. I am simply suggesting more of them - many more, in fact. I don't see Parliament being required. Planning departments and the CRT clearly have the powers required (BW undertook development earlier, though with a focus on pleasure boating rather than social need - http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/m...nd-explanatory-notes-on-moorings-policies.pdf)

Further, the OP related to eviction when there were disability issues. As I have pointed out, there are difficulties in eviction when the party is covered by the DDA.

 

[pcatterall]

Well, I did sign it and like many other emotion grabbing petitions realise that there are 2 sides to this, some eloquently ( and some less) put on the thread. I guess that the petition wont change things too drastically but may ensure that full consideration is given prior to any eviction proceedings where vulnerable people are involved.

 

[sixtimes]

Im also being taken to court.i want it in court as im sick ov the way we get treated by the enforsment staff.wen they dont even do there jobs properly.by forsing us to move throu floods conditions the enforsment staff lie.

 

[dgadee]

Im also being taken to court.i want it in court as im sick ov the way we get treated by the enforsment staff.wen they dont even do there jobs properly.by forsing us to move throu floods conditions the enforsment staff lie.

I suggest that you try to get representation of some expert sort. Individuals who appear for themselves rarely have much success against a well funded organisation.

 

[rotrax]

Im also being taken to court.i want it in court as im sick ov the way we get treated by the enforsment staff.wen they dont even do there jobs properly.by forsing us to move throu floods conditions the enforsment staff lie.

Your post is very interesting-from the horses mouth so to speak.

Can you answer the following and also let us know what the alleged offence is?

1. Was your boat licenced at the time of prosecution?

2. Were you in a permanent residential mooring?

3. If not, where were you moored and how was the site designated for mooring?

4. If you were licenced, had you specified " Continuous Cruising " on your licence application?


Your answers will enlighten many who are interested in this post.

 

[sixtimes]

Crt call her maggie on here.but if u look at carts website it tells you her full name.so that isnt being very private is it.and they av even got her on the big list ov section 8 that they won so that is bragging about it straight away......

 

[Gumpy]

Your post is very interesting-from the horses mouth so to speak.

Can you answer the following and also let us know what the alleged offence is?

1. Was your boat licenced at the time of prosecution?

2. Were you in a permanent residential mooring?

3. If not, where were you moored and how was the site designated for mooring?

4. If you were licenced, had you specified " Continuous Cruising " on your licence application?


Your answers will enlighten many who are interested in this post.

If answer to 4 is yes had you been complying with the licence requirement to move every 14 days?

 

[sixtimes]

Ps cart why avent you taken the nigel moores case from the list ov section 8 cases..as i thought febuary last year he won on appeal he he he

 

[rotrax]

Ps cart why avent you taken the nigel moores case from the list ov section 8 cases..as i thought febuary last year he won on appeal he he he

Is there any reason you have not yet replied to post #74?

Answering those questions will give interested parties-and there are many-a better understanding of the problems boaters like you are experiencing.

 

[sixtimes]

Yes did av licence they revoke it.im on continous cruze.i couldnt go enywhere due too floods conditions i have got the evidence to prove it too.

 

[sixtimes]

Boaters in nottinham ave been told they are too old to do boating

 

[sixtimes]

Enforsement staff here put stickers on ur boats saying that you ave not moved.and you know damed well you have and got evidence too prove it

 

[Tranona]

'You do not seem to understand' appears to mean 'You are not willing to agree that I am right'. The latter is true.

There are residential moorings already. I am simply suggesting more of them - many more, in fact. I don't see Parliament being required. Planning departments and the CRT clearly have the powers required (BW undertook development earlier, though with a focus on pleasure boating rather than social need - http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/m...nd-explanatory-notes-on-moorings-policies.pdf)

Further, the OP related to eviction when there were disability issues. As I have pointed out, there are difficulties in eviction when the party is covered by the DDA.

Not "I am right" at all. There are practical constraints in planning law that limit the expansion of residential moorings. These have been raised at government level only recently. Most of the free water is in rural or green belt areas where residential land based development would not be allowed either.

I am not sure the removal of an unlicensed boat can be classed as an eviction - and if you read the CRT explanation of what went on, not only were their actions approved by the court but they involved other agencies in helping the person concerned find an alternative.

Of course it suits the campaigners to present their arguments in the form that they do because that is what they think attracts peoples' attention. Much easier to blame the CRT rather than accept that the people involved were acting illegally.

 

[sixtimes]

They tell you not to move in flood conditions wot do they do but put sticker on ur boat if you dont so how can you win

 

[dgadee]

Not "I am right" at all. There are practical constraints in planning law that limit the expansion of residential moorings. These have been raised at government level only recently. Most of the free water is in rural or green belt areas where residential land based development would not be allowed either.

I am not sure the removal of an unlicensed boat can be classed as an eviction - and if you read the CRT explanation of what went on, not only were their actions approved by the court but they involved other agencies in helping the person concerned find an alternative.

Of course it suits the campaigners to present their arguments in the form that they do because that is what they think attracts peoples' attention. Much easier to blame the CRT rather than accept that the people involved were acting illegally.

The problem with courts is that they often only hear one side of the argument - a situation getting even worse with the cutbacks in legal aid. The problem with other agencies being involved is that costs of keeping a neat and tidy waterway are then dumped onto the tax or rate payer.

There is a general point here about what we do with space in the UK. I am not keen on the sterile highlands of Scotland (some would call it natural, but once it - like the waterways - had humans living there) where people can't afford housing anymore and have to move out, thus making life harder for those who remain (and who are not second home owners). The situation seems to be the same with the canals - people being moved off and an artificial, picture book look sought for pleasure boaters (who no doubt have warm homes themselves). There is a housing crisis in parts of the UK and liveaboards offer one reduction of that problem.

The rhetorical shouting of 'illegality' at everyone is not, in my view, appropriate. Law is more complex than most realise, but unfortunately in many situations only the public organisation has the funds to utilise that complexity.